Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1731

control, N = 861

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

age

171

50.87 ± 12.58 (25 - 75)

51.09 ± 12.74 (25 - 75)

50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73)

0.818

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

173

0.679

f

137 (79%)

67 (78%)

70 (80%)

m

36 (21%)

19 (22%)

17 (20%)

occupation

173

0.923

day_training

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

full_time

21 (12%)

11 (13%)

10 (11%)

homemaker

18 (10%)

8 (9.3%)

10 (11%)

other

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

part_time

32 (18%)

16 (19%)

16 (18%)

retired

43 (25%)

21 (24%)

22 (25%)

self_employ

7 (4.0%)

4 (4.7%)

3 (3.4%)

student

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.3%)

t_and_e

2 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

1 (1.1%)

unemploy

42 (24%)

23 (27%)

19 (22%)

marital

173

0.966

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.1%)

divore

19 (11%)

11 (13%)

8 (9.2%)

in_relationship

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

married

53 (31%)

25 (29%)

28 (32%)

none

83 (48%)

41 (48%)

42 (48%)

seperation

3 (1.7%)

2 (2.3%)

1 (1.1%)

widow

10 (5.8%)

5 (5.8%)

5 (5.7%)

edu

173

0.347

bachelor

39 (23%)

15 (17%)

24 (28%)

diploma

32 (18%)

21 (24%)

11 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.9%)

4 (4.7%)

1 (1.1%)

postgraduate

15 (8.7%)

8 (9.3%)

7 (8.0%)

primary

12 (6.9%)

5 (5.8%)

7 (8.0%)

secondary_1_3

19 (11%)

10 (12%)

9 (10%)

secondary_4_5

42 (24%)

19 (22%)

23 (26%)

secondary_6_7

9 (5.2%)

4 (4.7%)

5 (5.7%)

fam_income

173

0.748

10001_12000

6 (3.5%)

2 (2.3%)

4 (4.6%)

12001_14000

10 (5.8%)

4 (4.7%)

6 (6.9%)

14001_16000

8 (4.6%)

3 (3.5%)

5 (5.7%)

16001_18000

4 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

2 (2.3%)

18001_20000

8 (4.6%)

6 (7.0%)

2 (2.3%)

20001_above

32 (18%)

19 (22%)

13 (15%)

2001_4000

24 (14%)

13 (15%)

11 (13%)

4001_6000

19 (11%)

7 (8.1%)

12 (14%)

6001_8000

16 (9.2%)

9 (10%)

7 (8.0%)

8001_10000

14 (8.1%)

7 (8.1%)

7 (8.0%)

below_2000

32 (18%)

14 (16%)

18 (21%)

medication

173

154 (89%)

76 (88%)

78 (90%)

0.787

onset_duration

170

15.50 ± 10.42 (0 - 56)

15.98 ± 11.40 (0 - 56)

15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35)

0.544

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

168

35.55 ± 13.49 (10 - 65)

34.98 ± 12.19 (10 - 61)

36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65)

0.583

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1731

control, N = 861

treatment, N = 871

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

173

3.10 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

0.699

recovery_stage_b

173

17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)

17.92 ± 2.90 (8 - 24)

17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24)

0.653

ras_confidence

173

29.76 ± 5.27 (14 - 45)

29.37 ± 5.16 (14 - 40)

30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45)

0.341

ras_willingness

173

11.78 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.71 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.647

ras_goal

173

17.42 ± 3.13 (7 - 25)

17.16 ± 3.03 (7 - 24)

17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25)

0.291

ras_reliance

173

13.31 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)

13.08 ± 2.82 (5 - 18)

13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20)

0.299

ras_domination

173

9.77 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.50 (3 - 15)

9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)

0.322

symptom

173

29.94 ± 9.10 (14 - 56)

30.08 ± 9.46 (14 - 55)

29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56)

0.842

slof_work

173

22.33 ± 4.77 (10 - 30)

22.55 ± 4.39 (12 - 30)

22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30)

0.554

slof_relationship

173

25.31 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)

24.98 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)

25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)

0.460

satisfaction

173

20.38 ± 7.12 (5 - 35)

19.56 ± 6.97 (5 - 33)

21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)

0.134

mhc_emotional

173

10.76 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.51 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18)

0.383

mhc_social

173

14.97 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)

14.78 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29)

0.653

mhc_psychological

173

21.67 ± 6.43 (6 - 36)

21.45 ± 6.27 (7 - 36)

21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36)

0.660

resilisnce

173

16.35 ± 4.69 (6 - 30)

15.78 ± 4.25 (6 - 24)

16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30)

0.113

social_provision

173

13.51 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

13.12 ± 2.68 (5 - 20)

13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

0.073

els_value_living

173

16.94 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.66 ± 3.05 (6 - 22)

17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.261

els_life_fulfill

173

12.70 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)

12.23 ± 3.32 (5 - 19)

13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20)

0.071

els

173

29.64 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)

28.90 ± 5.76 (11 - 39)

30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45)

0.107

social_connect

173

26.59 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)

27.08 ± 8.95 (8 - 48)

26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48)

0.490

shs_agency

173

14.29 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.77 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)

0.183

shs_pathway

173

15.95 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)

15.41 ± 4.18 (3 - 24)

16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24)

0.091

shs

173

30.24 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.58 (6 - 45)

31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48)

0.119

esteem

173

12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)

12.63 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)

0.976

mlq_search

173

14.87 ± 3.59 (3 - 21)

14.50 ± 3.61 (4 - 21)

15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)

0.182

mlq_presence

173

13.34 ± 4.43 (3 - 21)

13.20 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)

13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)

0.686

mlq

173

28.20 ± 7.14 (6 - 42)

27.70 ± 6.84 (7 - 40)

28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)

0.357

empower

173

19.13 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

18.71 ± 4.17 (9 - 30)

19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30)

0.202

ismi_resistance

173

14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.41 ± 2.35 (6 - 20)

14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

0.991

ismi_discrimation

173

11.65 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

11.83 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)

11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)

0.462

sss_affective

173

10.22 ± 3.64 (3 - 18)

10.14 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

0.774

sss_behavior

173

9.90 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

9.99 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.764

sss_cognitive

173

8.43 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

8.36 ± 3.61 (3 - 18)

8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

0.798

sss

173

28.55 ± 10.33 (9 - 54)

28.49 ± 10.18 (9 - 54)

28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54)

0.933

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.14

0.127

2.89, 3.39

group

control

treatment

-0.071

0.180

-0.423, 0.282

0.695

time_point

1st

2nd

0.175

0.194

-0.205, 0.555

0.368

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.344

0.282

-0.209, 0.896

0.225

Pseudo R square

0.022

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.311

17.3, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.194

0.438

-1.05, 0.664

0.658

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.216

0.421

-1.04, 0.610

0.610

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.870

0.613

-0.333, 2.07

0.159

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.4

0.565

28.3, 30.5

group

control

treatment

0.766

0.797

-0.797, 2.33

0.338

time_point

1st

2nd

1.28

0.583

0.138, 2.42

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.546

0.850

-1.12, 2.21

0.522

Pseudo R square

0.026

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.218

11.3, 12.1

group

control

treatment

0.141

0.307

-0.461, 0.743

0.646

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.136

0.242

-0.610, 0.338

0.575

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.409

0.353

-0.282, 1.10

0.250

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.340

16.5, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.504

0.480

-0.437, 1.44

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

0.293

0.411

-0.513, 1.10

0.479

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.479

0.599

-0.696, 1.65

0.426

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.313

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.459

0.441

-0.405, 1.32

0.299

time_point

1st

2nd

0.412

0.353

-0.279, 1.10

0.246

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.427

0.514

-0.582, 1.43

0.409

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.256

9.45, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.367

0.361

-1.07, 0.339

0.310

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.107

0.328

-0.750, 0.536

0.745

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.21

0.478

0.271, 2.14

0.013

Pseudo R square

0.022

symptom

(Intercept)

30.1

0.978

28.2, 32.0

group

control

treatment

-0.277

1.379

-2.98, 2.43

0.841

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.26

0.868

-2.96, 0.438

0.149

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.469

1.267

-2.95, 2.02

0.712

Pseudo R square

0.006

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.514

21.5, 23.6

group

control

treatment

-0.432

0.725

-1.85, 0.988

0.552

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.104

0.541

-1.16, 0.957

0.848

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.456

0.790

-1.09, 2.00

0.565

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.0

0.631

23.7, 26.2

group

control

treatment

0.667

0.890

-1.08, 2.41

0.455

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.456

0.677

-1.78, 0.871

0.502

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.718

0.988

-1.22, 2.65

0.469

Pseudo R square

0.007

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.6

0.769

18.1, 21.1

group

control

treatment

1.63

1.084

-0.499, 3.75

0.135

time_point

1st

2nd

0.828

0.763

-0.668, 2.32

0.281

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.663

1.114

-1.52, 2.85

0.553

Pseudo R square

0.021

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.402

9.72, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.500

0.567

-0.611, 1.61

0.379

time_point

1st

2nd

0.489

0.394

-0.283, 1.26

0.218

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.316

0.575

-1.44, 0.811

0.584

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.8

0.620

13.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

0.382

0.875

-1.33, 2.10

0.663

time_point

1st

2nd

0.857

0.682

-0.479, 2.19

0.212

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.083

0.994

-2.03, 1.87

0.934

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

0.708

20.1, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.432

0.999

-1.53, 2.39

0.666

time_point

1st

2nd

1.15

0.769

-0.357, 2.66

0.138

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.233

1.122

-2.43, 1.97

0.836

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

15.8

0.492

14.8, 16.7

group

control

treatment

1.13

0.694

-0.232, 2.49

0.106

time_point

1st

2nd

0.794

0.563

-0.310, 1.90

0.162

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.09

0.821

-0.518, 2.70

0.187

Pseudo R square

0.043

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.307

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.780

0.433

-0.068, 1.63

0.073

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.454

0.355

-1.15, 0.241

0.204

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.728

0.517

-0.285, 1.74

0.162

Pseudo R square

0.034

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.345

16.0, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.544

0.487

-0.410, 1.50

0.265

time_point

1st

2nd

0.303

0.373

-0.428, 1.03

0.419

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.234

0.544

-0.833, 1.30

0.668

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.356

11.5, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.928

0.502

-0.055, 1.91

0.066

time_point

1st

2nd

0.531

0.342

-0.139, 1.20

0.124

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.125

0.499

-1.10, 0.853

0.803

Pseudo R square

0.022

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.645

27.6, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.47

0.910

-0.312, 3.26

0.107

time_point

1st

2nd

0.859

0.594

-0.304, 2.02

0.152

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.001

0.866

-1.70, 1.70

0.999

Pseudo R square

0.019

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.1

1.008

25.1, 29.1

group

control

treatment

-0.978

1.422

-3.76, 1.81

0.492

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.206

0.962

-2.09, 1.68

0.831

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.55

1.404

-5.30, 0.201

0.073

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.546

12.7, 14.8

group

control

treatment

1.04

0.770

-0.471, 2.55

0.179

time_point

1st

2nd

0.400

0.540

-0.658, 1.46

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.468

0.787

-1.08, 2.01

0.554

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.438

14.5, 16.3

group

control

treatment

1.08

0.618

-0.136, 2.29

0.083

time_point

1st

2nd

0.726

0.444

-0.145, 1.60

0.106

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.419

0.649

-1.69, 0.852

0.520

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.940

27.3, 31.0

group

control

treatment

2.11

1.325

-0.484, 4.71

0.113

time_point

1st

2nd

1.12

0.915

-0.673, 2.91

0.224

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.031

1.335

-2.59, 2.65

0.981

Pseudo R square

0.018

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.160

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

-0.007

0.226

-0.450, 0.435

0.975

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.071

0.256

-0.573, 0.431

0.782

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.166

0.371

-0.562, 0.894

0.656

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.5

0.382

13.8, 15.2

group

control

treatment

0.730

0.539

-0.327, 1.79

0.177

time_point

1st

2nd

0.754

0.453

-0.135, 1.64

0.100

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.839

0.661

-2.13, 0.456

0.207

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.472

12.3, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.274

0.665

-1.03, 1.58

0.681

time_point

1st

2nd

0.660

0.494

-0.307, 1.63

0.185

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.062

0.720

-1.47, 1.35

0.932

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.767

26.2, 29.2

group

control

treatment

1.00

1.081

-1.12, 3.12

0.355

time_point

1st

2nd

1.40

0.826

-0.218, 3.02

0.093

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.866

1.204

-3.23, 1.49

0.474

Pseudo R square

0.007

empower

(Intercept)

18.7

0.464

17.8, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.842

0.654

-0.439, 2.12

0.199

time_point

1st

2nd

0.904

0.468

-0.013, 1.82

0.057

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.04

0.682

-2.38, 0.294

0.130

Pseudo R square

0.008

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.274

13.9, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.005

0.386

-0.762, 0.752

0.990

time_point

1st

2nd

0.052

0.348

-0.631, 0.735

0.881

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.654

0.507

-0.341, 1.65

0.201

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.337

11.2, 12.5

group

control

treatment

-0.343

0.475

-1.27, 0.587

0.471

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.072

0.437

-0.929, 0.785

0.869

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.572

0.637

-1.82, 0.676

0.371

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.392

9.37, 10.9

group

control

treatment

0.159

0.553

-0.924, 1.24

0.774

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.094

0.394

-0.865, 0.678

0.813

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.10

0.574

-2.22, 0.026

0.059

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.99

0.403

9.20, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.172

0.568

-1.29, 0.942

0.762

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.296

0.400

-1.08, 0.488

0.462

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.423

0.583

-1.57, 0.720

0.470

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.36

0.395

7.59, 9.13

group

control

treatment

0.145

0.557

-0.947, 1.24

0.795

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.028

0.435

-0.880, 0.823

0.948

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.975

0.634

-2.22, 0.267

0.127

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

28.5

1.108

26.3, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.132

1.562

-2.93, 3.19

0.933

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.469

1.025

-2.48, 1.54

0.648

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.28

1.496

-5.21, 0.651

0.131

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(244) = 24.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(244) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.56], t(244) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.90], t(244) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.31, 18.53], t(244) = 57.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.66], t(244) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.61], t(244) = -0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.07], t(244) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.37 (95% CI [28.26, 30.48], t(244) = 51.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.33], t(244) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.14, 2.42], t(244) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.21], t(244) = 0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.71 (95% CI [11.28, 12.14], t(244) = 53.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.74], t(244) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.34], t(244) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.10], t(244) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.50, 17.83], t(244) = 50.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.44], t(244) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.10], t(244) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.65], t(244) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(244) = 41.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.32], t(244) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.10], t(244) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.43], t(244) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.45, 10.45], t(244) = 38.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.34], t(244) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.54], t(244) = -0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [0.27, 2.14], t(244) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.12, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.08 (95% CI [28.16, 32.00], t(244) = 30.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.98, 2.43], t(244) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.96, 0.44], t(244) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.02], t(244) = -0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.55 (95% CI [21.54, 23.55], t(244) = 43.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.99], t(244) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.96], t(244) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.00], t(244) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.98 (95% CI [23.74, 26.21], t(244) = 39.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.41], t(244) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.87], t(244) = -0.67, p = 0.500; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.22, 2.65], t(244) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.56 (95% CI [18.05, 21.06], t(244) = 25.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.75], t(244) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.32], t(244) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.85], t(244) = 0.60, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.72, 11.30], t(244) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.61], t(244) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.26], t(244) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.81], t(244) = -0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.56, 16.00], t(244) = 23.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.10], t(244) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.19], t(244) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.87], t(244) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.45 (95% CI [20.07, 22.84], t(244) = 30.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.39], t(244) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.66], t(244) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.97], t(244) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.78 (95% CI [14.81, 16.74], t(244) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.49], t(244) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.90], t(244) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.70], t(244) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.51, 13.72], t(244) = 42.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.63], t(244) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.24], t(244) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.74], t(244) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.99, 17.34], t(244) = 48.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.50], t(244) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.03], t(244) = 0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.30], t(244) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.23 (95% CI [11.53, 12.93], t(244) = 34.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.91], t(244) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.20], t(244) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.85], t(244) = -0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.90 (95% CI [27.63, 30.16], t(244) = 44.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.31, 3.26], t(244) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.02], t(244) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.91e-04, 95% CI [-1.70, 1.70], t(244) = -1.03e-03, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.49e-04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.08 (95% CI [25.10, 29.06], t(244) = 26.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-3.76, 1.81], t(244) = -0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.68], t(244) = -0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.55, 95% CI [-5.30, 0.20], t(244) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.77 (95% CI [12.70, 14.84], t(244) = 25.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.55], t(244) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.46], t(244) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.01], t(244) = 0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.55, 16.27], t(244) = 35.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.29], t(244) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.60], t(244) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.85], t(244) = -0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.33, 31.02], t(244) = 31.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 4.71], t(244) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.91], t(244) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.59, 2.65], t(244) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.86e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.63 (95% CI [12.31, 12.94], t(244) = 78.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44], t(244) = -0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = -4.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.43], t(244) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.89], t(244) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.50 (95% CI [13.75, 15.25], t(244) = 37.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.79], t(244) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.64], t(244) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.46], t(244) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.27, 14.12], t(244) = 27.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.58], t(244) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.63], t(244) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.35], t(244) = -0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.19, 29.20], t(244) = 36.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.12], t(244) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.22, 3.02], t(244) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.23, 1.49], t(244) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.71 (95% CI [17.80, 19.62], t(244) = 40.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.12], t(244) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.82], t(244) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-3.02e-03, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.38, 0.29], t(244) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.41 (95% CI [13.87, 14.94], t(244) = 52.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.68e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.75], t(244) = -0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = -1.83e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.73], t(244) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.65], t(244) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [11.17, 12.49], t(244) = 35.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.59], t(244) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.78], t(244) = -0.17, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.68], t(244) = -0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.14 (95% CI [9.37, 10.91], t(244) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.24], t(244) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.68], t(244) = -0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.03], t(244) = -1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 7.06e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(244) = 24.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.94], t(244) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.49], t(244) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.72], t(244) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.36 (95% CI [7.59, 9.13], t(244) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.24], t(244) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.82], t(244) = -0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -7.69e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.27], t(244) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.49 (95% CI [26.32, 30.66], t(244) = 25.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.93, 3.19], t(244) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.48, 1.54], t(244) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-5.21, 0.65], t(244) = -1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

793.144

803.709

-393.572

787.144

recovery_stage_a

random

6

791.956

813.085

-389.978

779.956

7.188

3

0.066

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,221.417

1,231.981

-607.708

1,215.417

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,224.970

1,246.099

-606.485

1,212.970

2.446

3

0.485

ras_confidence

null

3

1,496.202

1,506.766

-745.101

1,490.202

ras_confidence

random

6

1,487.896

1,509.025

-737.948

1,475.896

14.306

3

0.003

ras_willingness

null

3

1,017.447

1,028.011

-505.724

1,011.447

ras_willingness

random

6

1,021.329

1,042.458

-504.665

1,009.329

2.118

3

0.548

ras_goal

null

3

1,255.418

1,265.982

-624.709

1,249.418

ras_goal

random

6

1,255.985

1,277.114

-621.992

1,243.985

5.433

3

0.143

ras_reliance

null

3

1,206.261

1,216.826

-600.131

1,200.261

ras_reliance

random

6

1,204.350

1,225.479

-596.175

1,192.350

7.911

3

0.048

ras_domination

null

3

1,124.473

1,135.037

-559.236

1,118.473

ras_domination

random

6

1,120.661

1,141.790

-554.330

1,108.661

9.812

3

0.020

symptom

null

3

1,740.165

1,750.730

-867.083

1,734.165

symptom

random

6

1,740.544

1,761.673

-864.272

1,728.544

5.622

3

0.132

slof_work

null

3

1,437.788

1,448.352

-715.894

1,431.788

slof_work

random

6

1,443.152

1,464.281

-715.576

1,431.152

0.636

3

0.888

slof_relationship

null

3

1,544.335

1,554.899

-769.168

1,538.335

slof_relationship

random

6

1,548.761

1,569.890

-768.381

1,536.761

1.574

3

0.665

satisfaction

null

3

1,637.658

1,648.222

-815.829

1,631.658

satisfaction

random

6

1,636.324

1,657.453

-812.162

1,624.324

7.334

3

0.062

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,306.429

1,316.993

-650.214

1,300.429

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,310.120

1,331.249

-649.060

1,298.120

2.309

3

0.511

mhc_social

null

3

1,540.180

1,550.744

-767.090

1,534.180

mhc_social

random

6

1,543.280

1,564.409

-765.640

1,531.280

2.900

3

0.407

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,605.478

1,616.042

-799.739

1,599.478

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,607.831

1,628.960

-797.915

1,595.831

3.647

3

0.302

resilisnce

null

3

1,442.924

1,453.488

-718.462

1,436.924

resilisnce

random

6

1,433.187

1,454.316

-710.593

1,421.187

15.737

3

0.001

social_provision

null

3

1,199.797

1,210.361

-596.898

1,193.797

social_provision

random

6

1,198.246

1,219.375

-593.123

1,186.246

7.551

3

0.056

els_value_living

null

3

1,246.009

1,256.574

-620.005

1,240.009

els_value_living

random

6

1,247.917

1,269.046

-617.959

1,235.917

4.092

3

0.252

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,247.631

1,258.195

-620.815

1,241.631

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,246.673

1,267.802

-617.336

1,234.673

6.958

3

0.073

els

null

3

1,538.537

1,549.101

-766.268

1,532.537

els

random

6

1,537.914

1,559.042

-762.957

1,525.914

6.623

3

0.085

social_connect

null

3

1,768.760

1,779.325

-881.380

1,762.760

social_connect

random

6

1,766.281

1,787.409

-877.140

1,754.281

8.480

3

0.037

shs_agency

null

3

1,463.577

1,474.141

-728.788

1,457.577

shs_agency

random

6

1,464.417

1,485.546

-726.208

1,452.417

5.160

3

0.160

shs_pathway

null

3

1,358.126

1,368.690

-676.063

1,352.126

shs_pathway

random

6

1,358.443

1,379.572

-673.222

1,346.443

5.683

3

0.128

shs

null

3

1,733.491

1,744.056

-863.746

1,727.491

shs

random

6

1,733.938

1,755.067

-860.969

1,721.938

5.553

3

0.135

esteem

null

3

904.656

915.220

-449.328

898.656

esteem

random

6

910.417

931.546

-449.209

898.417

0.238

3

0.971

mlq_search

null

3

1,309.316

1,319.880

-651.658

1,303.316

mlq_search

random

6

1,311.497

1,332.626

-649.749

1,299.497

3.818

3

0.282

mlq_presence

null

3

1,396.609

1,407.173

-695.304

1,390.609

mlq_presence

random

6

1,399.346

1,420.475

-693.673

1,387.346

3.262

3

0.353

mlq

null

3

1,644.219

1,654.783

-819.110

1,638.219

mlq

random

6

1,646.404

1,667.533

-817.202

1,634.404

3.815

3

0.282

empower

null

3

1,384.308

1,394.872

-689.154

1,378.308

empower

random

6

1,385.634

1,406.763

-686.817

1,373.634

4.673

3

0.197

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,151.820

1,162.385

-572.910

1,145.820

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,153.968

1,175.097

-570.984

1,141.968

3.853

3

0.278

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,256.715

1,267.280

-625.358

1,250.715

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,259.687

1,280.815

-623.843

1,247.687

3.029

3

0.387

sss_affective

null

3

1,303.355

1,313.920

-648.678

1,297.355

sss_affective

random

6

1,301.146

1,322.275

-644.573

1,289.146

8.209

3

0.042

sss_behavior

null

3

1,310.966

1,321.530

-652.483

1,304.966

sss_behavior

random

6

1,313.303

1,334.432

-650.652

1,301.303

3.662

3

0.300

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,316.506

1,327.070

-655.253

1,310.506

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,317.715

1,338.844

-652.857

1,305.715

4.791

3

0.188

sss

null

3

1,809.542

1,820.106

-901.771

1,803.542

sss

random

6

1,808.893

1,830.022

-898.447

1,796.893

6.649

3

0.084

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

86

3.14 ± 1.18

87

3.07 ± 1.18

0.695

0.073

recovery_stage_a

2nd

41

3.31 ± 1.15

-0.181

36

3.59 ± 1.15

-0.536

0.301

-0.282

recovery_stage_b

1st

86

17.92 ± 2.88

87

17.72 ± 2.88

0.658

0.095

recovery_stage_b

2nd

41

17.70 ± 2.70

0.105

36

18.38 ± 2.68

-0.319

0.273

-0.330

ras_confidence

1st

86

29.37 ± 5.24

87

30.14 ± 5.24

0.338

-0.280

ras_confidence

2nd

41

30.65 ± 4.47

-0.468

36

31.96 ± 4.36

-0.667

0.194

-0.479

ras_willingness

1st

86

11.71 ± 2.02

87

11.85 ± 2.02

0.646

-0.124

ras_willingness

2nd

41

11.57 ± 1.76

0.119

36

12.12 ± 1.73

-0.238

0.169

-0.481

ras_goal

1st

86

17.16 ± 3.16

87

17.67 ± 3.16

0.295

-0.257

ras_goal

2nd

41

17.46 ± 2.84

-0.149

36

18.44 ± 2.80

-0.393

0.128

-0.500

ras_reliance

1st

86

13.08 ± 2.90

87

13.54 ± 2.90

0.299

-0.274

ras_reliance

2nd

41

13.49 ± 2.55

-0.246

36

14.38 ± 2.50

-0.502

0.125

-0.530

ras_domination

1st

86

9.95 ± 2.37

87

9.59 ± 2.37

0.310

0.233

ras_domination

2nd

41

9.85 ± 2.18

0.068

36

10.69 ± 2.15

-0.697

0.091

-0.532

symptom

1st

86

30.08 ± 9.07

87

29.80 ± 9.07

0.841

0.069

symptom

2nd

41

28.82 ± 7.40

0.313

36

28.07 ± 7.17

0.429

0.654

0.185

slof_work

1st

86

22.55 ± 4.76

87

22.11 ± 4.76

0.552

0.169

slof_work

2nd

41

22.44 ± 4.09

0.041

36

22.47 ± 4.00

-0.138

0.979

-0.010

slof_relationship

1st

86

24.98 ± 5.86

87

25.64 ± 5.86

0.455

-0.209

slof_relationship

2nd

41

24.52 ± 5.05

0.143

36

25.91 ± 4.95

-0.082

0.226

-0.434

satisfaction

1st

86

19.56 ± 7.13

87

21.18 ± 7.13

0.135

-0.455

satisfaction

2nd

41

20.39 ± 6.00

-0.232

36

22.67 ± 5.85

-0.417

0.092

-0.640

mhc_emotional

1st

86

10.51 ± 3.73

87

11.01 ± 3.73

0.379

-0.271

mhc_emotional

2nd

41

11.00 ± 3.13

-0.265

36

11.18 ± 3.05

-0.094

0.794

-0.100

mhc_social

1st

86

14.78 ± 5.75

87

15.16 ± 5.75

0.663

-0.119

mhc_social

2nd

41

15.64 ± 5.01

-0.266

36

15.94 ± 4.91

-0.240

0.792

-0.093

mhc_psychological

1st

86

21.45 ± 6.57

87

21.89 ± 6.57

0.666

-0.119

mhc_psychological

2nd

41

22.60 ± 5.69

-0.317

36

22.80 ± 5.58

-0.253

0.877

-0.055

resilisnce

1st

86

15.78 ± 4.57

87

16.91 ± 4.57

0.106

-0.423

resilisnce

2nd

41

16.57 ± 4.03

-0.297

36

18.79 ± 3.96

-0.705

0.016

-0.831

social_provision

1st

86

13.12 ± 2.85

87

13.90 ± 2.85

0.073

-0.463

social_provision

2nd

41

12.66 ± 2.52

0.269

36

14.17 ± 2.48

-0.163

0.009

-0.895

els_value_living

1st

86

16.66 ± 3.20

87

17.21 ± 3.20

0.265

-0.309

els_value_living

2nd

41

16.97 ± 2.77

-0.172

36

17.74 ± 2.71

-0.305

0.215

-0.442

els_life_fulfill

1st

86

12.23 ± 3.30

87

13.16 ± 3.30

0.066

-0.581

els_life_fulfill

2nd

41

12.76 ± 2.75

-0.332

36

13.57 ± 2.68

-0.254

0.196

-0.502

els

1st

86

28.90 ± 5.99

87

30.37 ± 5.99

0.107

-0.532

els

2nd

41

29.75 ± 4.93

-0.311

36

31.23 ± 4.79

-0.310

0.186

-0.532

social_connect

1st

86

27.08 ± 9.35

87

26.10 ± 9.35

0.492

0.218

social_connect

2nd

41

26.88 ± 7.78

0.046

36

23.35 ± 7.57

0.613

0.045

0.785

shs_agency

1st

86

13.77 ± 5.06

87

14.80 ± 5.06

0.179

-0.411

shs_agency

2nd

41

14.17 ± 4.26

-0.158

36

15.67 ± 4.15

-0.343

0.118

-0.596

shs_pathway

1st

86

15.41 ± 4.07

87

16.48 ± 4.07

0.083

-0.516

shs_pathway

2nd

41

16.13 ± 3.45

-0.348

36

16.79 ± 3.36

-0.147

0.399

-0.315

shs

1st

86

29.17 ± 8.72

87

31.29 ± 8.72

0.112

-0.494

shs

2nd

41

30.29 ± 7.30

-0.262

36

32.44 ± 7.11

-0.269

0.193

-0.501

esteem

1st

86

12.63 ± 1.48

87

12.62 ± 1.48

0.975

0.006

esteem

2nd

41

12.56 ± 1.47

0.055

36

12.72 ± 1.47

-0.073

0.637

-0.122

mlq_search

1st

86

14.50 ± 3.54

87

15.23 ± 3.54

0.177

-0.338

mlq_search

2nd

41

15.25 ± 3.17

-0.349

36

15.14 ± 3.12

0.040

0.879

0.051

mlq_presence

1st

86

13.20 ± 4.37

87

13.47 ± 4.37

0.681

-0.118

mlq_presence

2nd

41

13.86 ± 3.74

-0.284

36

14.07 ± 3.66

-0.258

0.802

-0.091

mlq

1st

86

27.70 ± 7.11

87

28.70 ± 7.11

0.355

-0.258

mlq

2nd

41

29.10 ± 6.14

-0.360

36

29.24 ± 6.02

-0.137

0.921

-0.035

empower

1st

86

18.71 ± 4.30

87

19.55 ± 4.30

0.199

-0.384

empower

2nd

41

19.61 ± 3.64

-0.412

36

19.41 ± 3.55

0.064

0.807

0.092

ismi_resistance

1st

86

14.41 ± 2.54

87

14.40 ± 2.54

0.990

0.003

ismi_resistance

2nd

41

14.46 ± 2.33

-0.031

36

15.11 ± 2.30

-0.421

0.220

-0.387

ismi_discrimation

1st

86

11.83 ± 3.12

87

11.48 ± 3.12

0.471

0.162

ismi_discrimation

2nd

41

11.75 ± 2.88

0.034

36

10.84 ± 2.85

0.305

0.163

0.434

sss_affective

1st

86

10.14 ± 3.64

87

10.30 ± 3.64

0.774

-0.086

sss_affective

2nd

41

10.05 ± 3.07

0.051

36

9.11 ± 3.00

0.647

0.176

0.510

sss_behavior

1st

86

9.99 ± 3.74

87

9.82 ± 3.74

0.762

0.092

sss_behavior

2nd

41

9.69 ± 3.15

0.158

36

9.10 ± 3.07

0.384

0.402

0.318

sss_cognitive

1st

86

8.36 ± 3.66

87

8.51 ± 3.66

0.795

-0.071

sss_cognitive

2nd

41

8.33 ± 3.19

0.014

36

7.50 ± 3.13

0.489

0.251

0.404

sss

1st

86

28.49 ± 10.27

87

28.62 ± 10.27

0.933

-0.028

sss

2nd

41

28.02 ± 8.47

0.098

36

25.87 ± 8.23

0.576

0.261

0.450

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(231.26) = -0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)

2st

t(237.87) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.79)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(216.53) = -0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.67)

2st

t(234.61) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.89)

ras_confidence

1st

t(194.09) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)

2st

t(242.89) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.30)

ras_willingness

1st

t(198.62) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.75)

2st

t(240.02) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.34)

ras_goal

1st

t(205.02) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.45)

2st

t(236.78) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.25)

ras_reliance

1st

t(199.74) = 1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)

2st

t(239.36) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.02)

ras_domination

1st

t(210.56) = -1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.34)

2st

t(235.15) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.81)

symptom

1st

t(187.29) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.44)

2st

t(245.98) = -0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-4.02 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st

t(195.35) = -0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.00)

2st

t(242.07) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.84)

slof_relationship

1st

t(196.44) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.42)

2st

t(241.37) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.86 to 3.63)

satisfaction

1st

t(192.15) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.76)

2st

t(244.08) = 1.69, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.38 to 4.95)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(191.52) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.62)

2st

t(244.44) = 0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.57)

mhc_social

1st

t(197.96) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.11)

2st

t(240.42) = 0.26, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.53)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(197.21) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.40)

2st

t(240.89) = 0.15, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.73)

resilisnce

1st

t(200.71) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.50)

2st

t(238.82) = 2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.42 to 4.01)

social_provision

1st

t(201.53) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.63)

2st

t(238.38) = 2.65, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.39 to 2.63)

els_value_living

1st

t(196.93) = 1.12, p = 0.265, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.50)

2st

t(241.06) = 1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.01)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(190.58) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.92)

2st

t(244.93) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.02)

els

1st

t(188.67) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.27)

2st

t(245.71) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.71 to 3.65)

social_connect

1st

t(190.25) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.83)

2st

t(245.09) = -2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-6.98 to -0.08)

shs_agency

1st

t(191.92) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.56)

2st

t(244.22) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.39)

shs_pathway

1st

t(193.21) = 1.74, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.30)

2st

t(243.44) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.19)

shs

1st

t(191.19) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.50 to 4.73)

2st

t(244.62) = 1.30, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.09 to 5.38)

esteem

1st

t(237.90) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.44)

2st

t(241.03) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.82)

mlq_search

1st

t(203.53) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.79)

2st

t(237.41) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.30)

mlq_presence

1st

t(194.99) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.58)

2st

t(242.31) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.88)

mlq

1st

t(196.66) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.13 to 3.14)

2st

t(241.24) = 0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.87)

empower

1st

t(192.96) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.13)

2st

t(243.59) = -0.24, p = 0.807, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.41)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(209.73) = -0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.76)

2st

t(235.32) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.69)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(211.85) = -0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.59)

2st

t(234.93) = -1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.37)

sss_affective

1st

t(192.69) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)

2st

t(243.76) = -1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.30 to 0.42)

sss_behavior

1st

t(192.09) = -0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.95)

2st

t(244.12) = -0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.80)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(198.02) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.24)

2st

t(240.38) = -1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.59)

sss

1st

t(188.91) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.95 to 3.21)

2st

t(245.63) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-5.90 to 1.61)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(121.99) = 2.53, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.11 to 0.93)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.81) = 1.46, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.54)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(89.53) = 2.94, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.59 to 3.06)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(92.69) = 1.06, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.78)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(97.39) = 1.76, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.64)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(93.49) = 2.23, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.58)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(101.74) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.79)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(85.01) = -1.87, p = 0.129, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.11)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(90.40) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.50)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(91.15) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.69)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(88.21) = 1.83, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.11)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(87.79) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.01)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(92.22) = 1.07, p = 0.578, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.22)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(91.69) = 1.12, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.54)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(94.19) = 3.14, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.69 to 3.07)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(94.78) = 0.73, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.02)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(91.49) = 1.35, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.33)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(87.17) = 1.11, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.13)

els

1st vs 2st

t(85.91) = 1.36, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.12)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(86.95) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.79 to -0.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(88.06) = 1.51, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(88.93) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.25)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(87.57) = 1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.79 to 3.09)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(131.37) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.63)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(96.27) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.87)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(90.14) = 1.14, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.64)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(91.30) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.28)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(88.76) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.85)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(101.07) = 1.91, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(102.80) = -1.39, p = 0.337, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(88.58) = -2.85, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.03 to -0.36)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(88.17) = -1.69, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(92.26) = -2.17, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.92 to -0.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(86.07) = -2.52, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.92 to -0.58)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(115.69) = 0.90, p = 0.741, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.56)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(102.73) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.62)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(87.81) = 2.19, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.44)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(90.56) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.35)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(94.63) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.11)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(91.25) = 1.16, p = 0.495, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.11)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(98.38) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.55)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(83.85) = -1.45, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.47)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(88.56) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.97)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(89.22) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(86.66) = 1.08, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.35)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(86.29) = 1.24, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(90.15) = 1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.22)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(89.69) = 1.49, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.68)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(91.86) = 1.41, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.92)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(92.37) = -1.28, p = 0.410, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.25)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(89.52) = 0.81, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.05)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(85.75) = 1.55, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.21)

els

1st vs 2st

t(84.64) = 1.44, p = 0.304, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.04)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(85.56) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.71)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(86.52) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.47)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(87.29) = 1.63, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.61)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(86.10) = 1.22, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.94)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(123.67) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(93.66) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.66)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(88.34) = 1.33, p = 0.371, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.64)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(89.35) = 1.69, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.24 to 3.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(87.14) = 1.93, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.84)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(97.80) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.75)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(99.29) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.80)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(86.98) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.69)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(86.62) = -0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.50)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(90.18) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.84)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(84.78) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.51 to 1.57)

Plot

Clinical significance